Vitamin D and the ‘panacea’ of the sun

A dark side of vitamin D research has recently come to my attention. While established vitamin D experts were writing and researching only the calcitropic (calcium) effect of vitamin D in the 1980s and 1990s, another scientist was writing and researching about the non-calcitropic (heart, lung, brain, pancreas, stomach, muscle, immune, etc.) effects of vitamin D.

However, the academic vitamin D powers that existed in the 1980s and 1990s would not let this scientist publish his results in mainstream journals, nor let him give talks at mainstream meetings.

Professor Walter Stumpf of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine has recently detailed his experiences, without giving names of the vitamin D scientists who obstructed him, in an editorial not yet online, but with a wonderful name:

“There is no evidence to distinguish between classical and non-classical vitamin D target tissue and actions,” that is, vitamin D works the same in all its genomic (gene control) functions.

He concludes,

“Vitamin D is exceptional because of its extensive multiple actions, it high tolerance and its prophylactic and therapeutic potentials. Vitamin D’s wide-ranging life-sustaining effects set it apart from other steroids, as well as other compounds and drugs. Vitamin D is as fundamental as the sun, the closest thing we have to a ‘panacea.’”

6 Responses to Vitamin D and the ‘panacea’ of the sun

Umileritac@aol.com
October 6, 2012 at 7:34 am

On a previous blog I noted that Professor Walter Stumpf is THE man who laid the groundwork for the Vitamin D Era.

To my understanding, in 1979, this genious (one of my idols) discovered that activated vitamin D (as he called it soltriol) binds to sites all over the body, not just the kidney, intestine, parathyroid, and bone.

The clinicians and researchers at that time criticized him, saying that Vitamin D was only involved with calcium.

I always thought that it was as simple as Dr. Stumpf being ahead of the curve, with others simply needing time to catch up to his research. After all, it always takes society some time to keep up with change–why should the medical community be any different than society-at-large?

Now it seems that something nefarious was occurring….

I am not a researcher, nor am I a clinician. I’m only a regular person tying my best to keep informed on health and nutrition. Many of my friends tell me to place my trust in the medical community. The more I learn, the more I realize that such trust is unfortunately misplaced.

enjoyed the article as kind of part of the “medical establishment” let me say that many in the profession tend to have a hard time with anything “newish” that is not 100% proved by this “evidence based medicine” thing that is a bit of a mantra lately. so science is a changing thing and we need to keep our ears and eyes open for what is new and interesting but a good dose of healthy skepticism is not to bad an idea too.

things that work to help us be better and are cheap or free would be a really good thing Vit D seems to be one of these try looking up “backward walking” it is another

2. find a way to create a synthetic version of D3, deemed (by big pharma) to work “better”

Let’s remember that clinicians are people as well as doctors, with full lives (hopefully), and little time to always keep on top of every subject. They were taught (and perhaps are still taught) in medical school to be wary of high doses of D3.

Change in thinking is slow…researchers and clinicians appear not to talk….

IMO, it will take the public to move the medical community on this issue.

Those of us keeping our levels high and reaping the benefits of Vitamin D NEED to share this with our physicians.